Talk:Main Page/editcopy/Archive 4
This talk page should be used to discuss thing directly relevant to the Main Page or the edit copy. For discussions regarding GuildWiki in general, please use GuildWiki Talk:Community Portal. If you have any questions that aren't relevant to a specific talk page, head over to GuildWiki:User questions and add it. Downtime Notice : Would adding some type of banner to the front page warning about the upcoming downtime be a good idea? LordKestrel 10:26, 30 March 2006 (CST) ::Yeah it would have been nice to find that out here first before I tried to log in a few minutes ago. --DragonWR12LB 16:10, 30 March 2006 (CST) Links Id quite like to see a link to the collectors, as a lot of people use it for the collectors yet there is no direct link to it :Collectors are only 2 clicks away from the main page, click on Non-player characters and then Collectors (which is at the top of the NPC list). --Rainith 04:21, 2 April 2006 (CDT) Could we add a direct link to Pets on the front page? It's amazingly hard to find, unless I'm missing something. Zerris 22:51, 1 April 2006 (CST) :Pets are only 2 clicks away from the main page, click on Professions then scroll down to "Ranger" and click on pets. --Rainith 04:21, 2 April 2006 (CDT) ::Ah, so that's where they're hidden... thank you. I tried to find them under Beastiary, with no luck. Zerris 02:48, 5 April 2006 (CDT) :::Under Bestiary they are listed as Animals, since pet isn't a guild wars species. -SolaPan 08:50, 5 April 2006 (CDT) Abbreviations I've put in a change that expands PvE and PvP to their longer names. I could be convinced that it shouldn't be longer for space reasons (too wide), or because they are links, but personally I dislike having abbreviations players might not know on the front page. As a minor point, PvP and PvE are redirects, not the actual pages. Additionally, perhaps the subtitle text ("Adventure and Exploration") could be eliminated. As it is, there are no other abbreviations on the front page, unless I missed something. Thoughts? --JoDiamonds 02:39, 8 April 2006 (CDT) :My $0.02: The abbreviations look clean (roughly equal size for both) and if you aren't sure what they mean, you can click on them and find out. The new extended version looks ugly and overly verbose. Plus if you're in the game you're much more likely to come across the terms "PvP" and "PvE" than "Player vs Player" or "Player vs Environment". --Rainith 03:01, 8 April 2006 (CDT) ::Agreed with Rainith, shorthand looked better. --Xeeron 07:56, 10 April 2006 (CDT) :::I agree with Rainith as well; the abbreviations are pretty commonly used in-game. I also prefer the existing shorthand text; but if there's a concern of understanding, I would rather see the shorthand text modified to spell out the abbreviations, rather than eliminate the abbreviations. I'll try out that modification, and we can discuss it as well. --Barek 09:37, 10 April 2006 (CDT) :::: I personally like this better than the original, at least. It might make more sense to link the extended version (since the abbreviations go to redirects, as the page name is the longer version; it's also a bigger mouse target, which is a small consideration). I was never keen on the old descriptive text ("Adventure & Exploration", etc.) --JoDiamonds 13:28, 10 April 2006 (CDT) ::::: When I added the abbreviations back, I changed the links to avoid the redirects (I prefer not linking to redirects as well). So, the links in the editcopy go directly to the articles. --Barek 14:21, 10 April 2006 (CDT) Forum http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum Link on the sidebar should be http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=220 : Huh, I totally spaced that. Fixed now. Gravewit 09:34, 12 April 2006 (CDT) Bigger help part Very nice change, that huge header on top of the page always disturbed me and it fits well with the help topic. --Xeeron 07:56, 10 April 2006 (CDT) Game Basics Guides – Learning for other's experiences should be Guides – Learning from other's experiences Xiong Chiamiov 15:00, 10 April 2006 (CDT) :You are welcome to contribute to GuildWiki by making these types of changes yourself. I've gone ahead and corrected it on the Main Page/editcopy so that it will be reflected the next time the Main Page is re-synced. --Barek 20:12, 10 April 2006 (CDT) ::Well, I would have (I do lots of minor edits like that on wikis), but the Main Page is protected, y'know... Xiong Chiamiov 16:29, 12 April 2006 (CDT) :::Yes, but Main Page/editcopy isn't. That is the page to make changes to, then it is synced with the Main Page about every week or so (every so often when one of the admins thinks about syncing it). --Rainith 16:46, 12 April 2006 (CDT) ::::Thanks, didn't know that. Xiong Chiamiov Why the purge link? There are no transclusions in Main Page -- it shouldn't need purging. If you mean that the /editcopy changes are not propagating, then that's because no admin has propagated it recently (or they simply think that the current editcopy is not front page stuff). — Stabber 20:21, 21 April 2006 (CDT) :I saw some posts about the article counts, and noticed that I was seeing a discrepancy between statistics and main page. I purged it manually to fix. Not a big deal though. I could actually argue myself into removing it as too many purge requests against the server could affect performance. Likely not big enough of an issue to justify the link on the page, so I'll go ahead and remove. --- Barek (talk | ) - 20:29, 21 April 2006 (CDT) ::Yeah, removing is best. Tacking on a ?action=purge to the URL whenever necessary is something we can do manually, and it's best to leave arcane stuff like "purge" out of such a visible page. — Stabber 20:31, 21 April 2006 (CDT) Time to re-sync? With Factions coming out later this week, changes are sure to be coming fast. Can we get the Main Page re-synced to the edit copy this week before release, so we have a clean starting point for all the new changes coming? --- Barek (talk • ) - 21:21, 24 April 2006 (CDT) Factions Guide In the Game Basics section similar to the Pre-Searing Guide should be added a similar link for Faction guide containing link to Shing Jea Monastery and other descriptions Phoenix 02:36, 29 April 2006 (CDT) :Sounds good, write one up and link to it in Main Page/editcopy and I (or one of the other admins) will migrate it over to the Main Page. --Rainith 02:43, 29 April 2006 (CDT) ::I would love to, but i haven't aquired Factions yet so I'm unnable to provide information decent enought for one, but i thought to be a good ideea since the Pre-Searing Guide has proven very useful to me. Phoenix 12:23, 29 April 2006 (CDT) I've altered the link name for the pre-Searing guide on the editcopy. Assuming that pre-Searing still exists for people who purchase only the Prophecies campaign, I'd like this naming format (or something similar) to be used for the pre-Searing analogue in the Factions campaign. Any thoughts? (I'm not pushing directly to the main page, as I'm sure half of you will disagree) —Tanaric 00:24, 2 May 2006 (CDT) :The ideea isn't bad but i think it should be Newbie Guide: Prophecies Campaign Pre-Searing Phoenix 02:41, 2 May 2006 (CDT) One-line frontpage announcements Seems to me like you would get more traffic to the important stuff if you did a one-line banner announce on your frontpage for it... Like your Elite Fansite Status Letter. Or votes. I guess the real question is "Who reads the community portal?", answer being "Not casual visitors." Or maybe it's just me. :P --Tinarto 13:41, 29 April 2006 (CDT) :The question is... should casual visitors even be interested in such things? — Stabber ✍ 13:44, 29 April 2006 (CDT) ::I'm sure a number of people that find this resource amazingly useful but don't really edit much would be more than happy to recommend it for elite. Edit: As for the votes, I'm sure that's really a separate issue. --Tinarto 13:47, 29 April 2006 (CDT) :::In that case, my recommendation would be that when we make the final push for the elite status request, we should add a note about the campaign to the front page. I expect everyone's too busy playing the game and documenting whatever to do give the elite status issue too much attention, but when we have a moment to breathe we can dress up the site properly. — Stabber ✍ 16:50, 29 April 2006 (CDT) Special Items directory under the Items section of the main page Lets add a Special Items section on the front page. This will include all the fancy hats given from special events. It will include the birthday presents. It will include the christmas presents and easter presents and beverages. It will include the christmas candy cane weapons. Etc. :I really disagree with this idea. To me, these items of relatively low importance and of relatively minor importance really belong on a sub-level page, not prominently on the main page. --- Barek (talk • ) - 10:14, 2 May 2006 (CDT) ::I agree with Barek. Those items are fun, but have nothing to do with the top level of GuildWiki. --CoRrRan 11:23, 2 May 2006 (CDT) :::Nah, I think you're both wrong. When these things sell for 700,000 gold you know they need some attention on the wiki. What makes dye higher level than special items, for instance? Well, many people are very interested in dye. They're also interested in special green weapons, and special event items. Everyone on the forums talks about the special items, and this special item phenomenon is quite unique to Guild Wars as a game. It's a popular topic, and actually something that needs attention because the current hidden page is neglected and out of date. Not to mention the incompleteness of the Item categories listed on the front page -- you should be listing the discrete item categories, and the notable missing one is the special items. (first-time players start here) the line should be changed to "First-time players of guild wars (NOT Factions) start here" and another tutorial guide for factions should be added below it. :Eventually we'll have two guides, one for Prophecies and one for Factions. With Factions so new, it's not surprising that we don't have a first-time section yet - but one will be created and it will be added to the pront page at that point. --- Barek (talk • ) - 10:16, 2 May 2006 (CDT) ::IMO, I think this should even be setup completely different, since GW and GW:F are 2 standalone products. Players reading about a "pre-Searing" when they only have GW:F will/might be utterly confused. --CoRrRan 11:25, 2 May 2006 (CDT) :::Good work, whoever made the edit, this is a really nice layout for it. -Kingrames Pestering for re-sync We have day of the tengu on the page and a new pre-searing guide =) Skuld 09:21, 3 May 2006 (CDT) :Synced. --Rainith 11:28, 3 May 2006 (CDT) Problem with Mission Article Linkage There are currently no links on the main page to a listing of missions by campaign. Prior to the re-sync, the mission link on the main page pointed to Mission overviews. Currently, it points to Mission. The Mission article used to have available the same links as the Mission overviews article, but those were removed. So, which is the correct fix: to change the Mission article to add the links in again; or to change the link from the Main Page to point towards the Mission overviews article? --161.88.255.140 17:14, 3 May 2006 (CDT) :Note: It appears that someone already fixed it in the editcopy ... can we get another re-sync? --161.88.255.140 17:16, 3 May 2006 (CDT) ::I made another change to the edit copy and re-synced. If possible I think we should avoid linking to what is essentially a disambig. page (Mission overviews) from the main page. --Rainith 22:00, 3 May 2006 (CDT) :::I had once added the links within the Mission article, but those were removed. They still acted as disambiguation; but as part of an overall article which seemed a more appropriate link from the main page, as mirrorring the structure of how we're linking the quest articles. :::When the links were removed from that article, at the time I just dropped it rather than debating the structure; but I still think that's the cleaner way to do it (although I'll admit, my wording could've been improved). --- Barek (talk • ) - 22:10, 3 May 2006 (CDT) ::::I've done the same thing for Quests: Linked to Quests (Prophecies) and Quests (Factions). Does that work? --MasterPatricko 08:29, 4 May 2006 (CDT) Scalability of Main Page It looks to be a growing trend here; but from a long-term design perpective, I really don't care for the dual links on the main page for Prophecies / Factions (as now in Main Page for missions, and editcopy for quests). It's just not a scalable solution. What happens by Chapter 3, 4, or beyond? The screen real-estate starts getting chewed up quickly. I think we should design a scalable solution from the start, using an intermediate page like the existing Quest or Mission articles to both contain general information, as well as links to each chapter's specific items (as it was set-up for both at one point, but has been changed - I'm not reverting again as I don't want an editing war - but instead would prefer a discussion on it). --- Barek (talk • ) - 09:33, 4 May 2006 (CDT) :Yeah, that makes sense to me. We can't have 4 different quest links and 4 different mission links. However it should be the first thing the user sees when he gets to the Quests or Missions page, not something the user has to search for. Also that applies to everything: stuff like the Unique Items, the Skills, everything. --MasterPatricko 13:47, 4 May 2006 (CDT) ::It appears that the use of the format Prophecies / Factions is spreading on the Editcopy. So, as long as we've abandoned the concept of a scalable design, then I think we should at least be consistent. Should we implement this same P/F structure for all links where it applies? Storyline and Location are the remaining two that I can think of at this time - any others? --- Barek (talk • ) - 11:05, 6 May 2006 (CDT) :::Well it is a reasonable temporary solution IMO. What about stuff like NPCs, and the Bestiary? Basically *everything* PvE will need to be split up. --MasterPatricko 13:25, 6 May 2006 (CDT) Remove the current events link from the navbox? We don't have a current events article, and are unlikely to ever have one as GW:CP fills that need. Can that link be removed from teh navbox? — Stabber ✍ 23:10, 4 May 2006 (CDT) Gamewikis Announcements No offense, Gravewit, but are the announcements about other wikis really that important that we have to put them above anything else, even the welcome line? Would you consider to move it to the bottom, or at least below the welcome text? --[[User:Tetris L|'Tetris L']] 05:34, 7 May 2006 (CDT) :I agree. [[User:Foo|'Foo']] 05:39, 7 May 2006 (CDT) ::I also agree. Either eliminate that line, or move it elsewhere (maybe it's own box on the left, above the Google ads would work). My primary concern about its current placement, in a very prominent location at the very top, is that it could be a potential stumbling block to the on-going efforts to achieve Elite Fansite status for the GuildWiki site. --161.88.255.140 12:43, 8 May 2006 (CDT) :::IMO it seems no different than a banner ad and those are usually at the top of the page, but this is really much less intrusive (no changing colors/moving graphics/sound/etc...). It really doesn't seem to me to be something to get in such a tizzy about. --Rainith 12:51, 8 May 2006 (CDT) ::::To me, a banner add should be at the very top; we have links above it that make it obvious that the link is within the article section. If we're going to live with its current location, can we at least set it to a less prominent color - or no color at all? --161.88.255.140 13:02, 8 May 2006 (CDT) :::::I maintain we should keep the general announcements box where it is. We are a Gamewikis project, and the more exposure Gamewikis gets, the more funding we get. I rather like having a server that loads in less than twenty seconds per page! —Tanaric 21:54, 9 May 2006 (CDT) ::::::I'll suggest a modification on Main Page/editcopy, moving the box slightly down. It'll still be an eye-catcher, but below the welcome message, so it'll hopefully fit into the design more nicely. Off course, as uausl, if anyone, especially Gravewit or any other admin disagrees, revert. This is just meant as a suggestion. --Tetris L 07:38, 15 May 2006 (CDT) :::::::I am not an admin, but the new layout is much obstructive, I definitly prefer the old one. Having that huge yellow block up there is just ... --Xeeron 07:49, 15 May 2006 (CDT) ::::::::I agree currently it's even more in yar face than the old design, but that's more a matter of the yellow background than the size and position of the box. I'd rather change the background to a slightly less obtrusive color. --Tetris L 08:05, 15 May 2006 (CDT) :::::::::The old design was a one line message in regular text with a dash border. Why is it now multiline in bold text and solid border? Those changes are what, to me, make it so "in your face". Reverting to one line of non-bold text and a dash border should adequately reduce the emphasis on that message box. --- Barek (talk • ) - 08:47, 15 May 2006 (CDT) ::::::::::I didn't change anything about font or border. Just the position. I included the gameswiki blog link and I added the "Announcement" line, but I see now that this was a bad idea. I'll revert that. --Tetris L 09:02, 15 May 2006 (CDT) :::::::::::I removed the announcement line, leaving color and position. --Xeeron 13:33, 15 May 2006 (CDT) ::::::::::::Can an admin get in and remove the bold text in Main Page/site notice? To eliminate the bold, someone here inserted tags to make the text small. This results is text that's a little funky looking, as well as making the bold in the site notice a pointless exercise. If we remove the bold from there, we could remove the small tags here. --161.88.255.140 13:42, 15 May 2006 (CDT) :::::::::::::Un-bolded and small tags removed. --Rainith 13:51, 15 May 2006 (CDT) Guild Wars Nightfall While the site is intended to be unbiased, I think that it's important to list what we do know about the upcoming chapters. I put a note saying that Nightfall is not necessarily confirmed, but I do think that it is very important that the info be on the front page. It would be terribly bad form to have a red link on the front page. --Kingrames 12:36, 20 May 2006 (CDT) :The name Nightfall has not been confirmed. It MAY be campaign three's name, it may be campaign four's, or it may be some side-line project that is an add-in and not a campaign itself. While I agree that in all likelyhood it is to be the name for campaign three, it has not been confirmed in any way and we should not support rumors in articles, and certainly not in the main page. Rumors and speculation belong in the discussion pages. At most, the only article relating to it that should be linked from the main page is Campaign Three, and even that's open for debate if it belongs on the main page, or deeper in on some secondary page. --- Barek (talk • ) - 12:51, 20 May 2006 (CDT) ::Also of note is that companies often register trademarks/URLs for names to either throw off the competition/media or to make sure that another company won't get them. I do feel that Nightfall is probably what it will be called, but I think it is much more important that we keep this site's reputation for posting accurate info as opposed to posting rumors/speculation. While I cannot speak for any of the other Admins, I will not be putting anything about Nightfall on the main page until/unless there is confirmation by ANet. --Rainith 21:31, 20 May 2006 (CDT) :::I agree with Rainith. I still support the existence of the article, but it is nothing Front Page worthy unless it's about Anet confirming it, which it hasn't. - 21:33, 20 May 2006 (CDT) Check out my BIG change Main Page/editcopy2. I find the current main page a bit overwhelming when I walk in the shoes of someone new to the site. It's just a flood of things. So I considered which links are the absolute essentials to new comers, and nuked the rest (everything is still kept in GuildWiki:Main portal. Lemme know what you think of the concept. - 15:28, 27 May 2006 (CDT) :Right now, the new user can get to the main page, and look for "Green", "Armor", "quest" or any other basic game feature. this will make it much harder and less friendly imho. also, this will require a different entrance page for us, usual users. one that is actualy the current main page. I think a proper solution is to make a bigger and more noticeable "Starting Out" section in the main page, and maybe even make it a link to a page which explain a little and links the most commenly used pages for beginers. [[User:Foo|'Foo']] 20:31, 27 May 2006 (CDT) ::Wait, there are regular contributors that start out at the main page? Everyone doesn't just start with ? :P --Rainith 21:39, 27 May 2006 (CDT) ::I completely agree with Foo. I think this would hinder people not familiar with the wiki. A lot of people (like my guildmates) don't use the wiki at all because they can't easily find what they want. They say the search is pretty useless. I'd probably agree, but I know my way around the wiki content well enough that I don't use it and instead go to an article I know and click through one or two pages to get to where I want. This change just pushes the content an additional link away from inexperienced users. --68.142.13.97 22:14, 27 May 2006 (CDT) :::This is missing may links that several people use. I like using the link on the current main page to the skill page for instance. Its easy to find it that way, as well as other resources that the average player will be looking for. --Draygo Korvan 22:39, 27 May 2006 (CDT) :Rainith, I think you hit the spot. I come here for two reasons. sometimes I come here as just a reader, when I want to check the items of a collector, or where is a specific elite, and then I go to the main page. on other times I come to check the recent changes and my watch list, to see what's new in the wiki and where I can contribute. I think both you and PanSola see this site from your own point of view, of contributers, and in that spirit, PanSola sees the main page as a portal to the new wiki contributer, instead of the portal to the new wiki reader. and I think we should get us new readers, and just later make them into contributers. [[User:Foo|'Foo']] 03:59, 28 May 2006 (CDT) ::Actually I was thinking for the new Guild Wars player and new guildwiki reader, but maybe my ideas just don't work. - 11:29, 1 June 2006 (CDT) Blog Link I know there are multiple discussions related to the wiki and "official" status, so maybe this change was related to that. But, if not, does the GameWikis blog link really belong in the "What's New" section? The last new blog entry was in April, and the last comment posted was May 22nd. Not very new to me. --- Barek (talk • ) - 08:00, 1 June 2006 (CDT) :If Anet does not change skill balances or do any patches for 4 months, does Game updates still belong to the news section? - 11:27, 1 June 2006 (CDT) ::LOL - ANet going more than three weeks without an update of some type would be a record, no risk of the updates ever not belonging in what's new! --I am 161.88 11:31, 1 June 2006 (CDT) :::I think I'm going to put the blog link back. It is still the source of gamewikis news afterall. - 18:32, 8 June 2006 (CDT) :That link is rather off-topic indeed, more deserving of a link in small cases at the page bottom than a bolded topmost entry. I (random anonymous wiki user) keep misclicking on it, and I doubt that I'm alone. Section icons I just added basic section icons to the editcopy (did we used to have these a while ago? I can't remember). Since MediaWiki's pseudo/ugly image resize system sucks, the icons look rather pixelated/ugly - but this was just a basic idea. I like the idea, and I think if everyone else does then specially-sized versions of all of these (or other) icons should be made+uploaded for the main page to use, so we don't have to resize them with wiki code. What does everyone think? --Midk 03:46, 11 June 2006 (CDT) :I like the idea but it does look terrible — Skuld 03:50, 11 June 2006 (CDT) :To be honest, I don't think they add anything. Unless they're used to actually represent information (i.e. there's a legend somewhere), icons are just useless clutter. — 130.58 (talk) (04:01, 11 June 2006 (CDT)) ::The text next to them represents what they're for - so there is no legend. Nah, it doesn't add any more information to the page.. dunno.. just some color. :) ::I agree with 130.58. Ixnay on the utterclay. –'70.20' (☎) 2006-06-11 09:48 (UTC) :::I agree. The icons don't add anything meaningful to the page. If others decide to keep them, then I suggest new images as the .png format used for the current icons really do not scale very well, and loses a lot of image quality. --- Barek (talk • ) - 13:28, 11 June 2006 (CDT) The principle idea behind the action is good, but the specific icons chosen, in general, don't work out to be meaningful. - 04:26, 11 June 2006 (CDT) :I agree for the most part. I didn't want to bother uploading any new icons for this, just making use of what we have.. dunno, if you have any suggestions, I'd like to hear. :) Championship Link Any chance of getting a GWFC link put back into "What's New" in some form? The second bracket is over, but maybe something like: * Guild Wars Factions Championship – Third Season Ladder, May 30th to June 26th -- 66.92.33.187 09:40, 16 June 2006 (CDT) :Hmm... - 09:58, 16 June 2006 (CDT) moved from article page could we have a chest location page also please ( eg where the highest concentration of 'high level chests' are?) i think this would be very helpful , especially if people are aiming to get the new 'wisdom seeker' title (to open 100 high level chests) by User:81.79.32.182. ([[User:Foo|'Foo']])